Some well thought out posts on both sides of the argument, and what is clearly obvious is that there is no easy answer. Red said it perfectly in her last sentence...it "seems a lot easier said than done". I think it really is just that.

I think shupe and others are right in that if the league takes away fighting, we'll see an increase in the really ugly stuff - no doubt about it. So there is a very compelling reason to keep fighting in the game because, oddly enough, it may actually help increase player safety because it keeps the rats honest.

I am all for keeping fighting in the game. And I would even go so far as to say should the league ban it some day, there will be even less fans watching.

"If you think fighting will be pushed out of the game by those who don't like it you are simply dead wrong." - 'WalkThe Line'

Those who don't like it are exactly the ones who will push it out of the game. It's that simple. That cruel.

But who are the ones who do like it? And why? People here seem to work both sides of the street on this one. Some would speak of fighting here, as this valiant courageous service performed for the betterment of the game by heroic crusaders delivering redemption to the morally corrupt, to the lost souls of the game (to "the Ulf Samuelssons, the Matt Cookes, the Brad Marchands"...).

Others are less philosophical about it, they would cast it and defend it as some kind of god-given "right to entertainment'. They just like to watch it and resent having to feel guilty about it.

Which is it? Is fighting truly providing a useful, indispensible service to the game or is it simply for the entertainment of those it entertains ? I think those who defend their lust for violence with the language of the former - that fighting is a service to the game somehow - are being disingenuous.

I'd almost prefer it if they would just say, "I want fighting kept in the game because I really like to watch two young men fighting."

Now that is a smart analysis (bold print below). Too many teams and not enough skill. I still contend if you can met out justice on the various penalties not only during the game but there after with video review then most fighting would be deemed unnecessary. I would like to add if the games in the regular season meant more (points) then the amount of puglistic nonsense would be severly diminished. That said do not stop the players for metting out justice where it is not served. BTW Red me noticed the Iginla remark in your post. Hehe.

In response to red75's comment:

I fall into the camp that is set against the skating clowns but support fighting in other limited circumstances. Get rid of the clowns, and get rid of the scraps over a clean hit, but leave it in for the players who take cheap shots.

Now that may sound fine and dandy but it causes another problem which I think would make it impossible to get rid of the clowns entirely. If you leave it in so as to discourage the pests you still are going to need players who can fight but who can also contribute as hockey players. If the goons are gone, and you're going to allow fighting still, someone with a better skill set will have to answer the bell. That's fine by me, but it leaves a void because some teams just simply do not have those types of players.

Teams like the Bruins are stacked top to bottom with skilled players who are willing to drop the gloves - and can do so effectively - in order to stand up for themselves or a teammate. But not every team has a Zdeno Chara, Adam McQuaid, Milan Lucic, Jarome Iginla, Gregory Campbell, Chris Kelly - lord even Patrice Bergeron and Marc Savard have been willing to fight for the Bruins. They can get by without a goon, and so can other teams like the Hawks, Kings and Jets.

But then you have teams like the Canucks. They sorely lack players with at least a modicum of skill that will also scrap when needed. So they grab a goon (the late Rick Rypien for example since I mentioned the Canucks) in order to compensate. This causes an arms escalation of sorts as you're faced with either having Lucic trade time in the box with someone of a much lower skill set, or you get your own goon so you don't lose a skilled player to the box while the opponent only loses a clown. That's why we have ST or a team like the Jets have Thorburn. They have better fighters on their teams than either of those two players, but it makes no sense to have Chara or Byfuglien sitting in the box when your opponent only loses John Scott for 5 minutes.

The best solution? Get the weakass teams to hire tougher skilled players. Unfortunately they aren't always easy to find - it doesn't seem to be as common a skillset as it once was - and I don't think you can, to continue the arms analogy, ask some teams to just unilaterally disarm.

You could get rid of all the staged fights just by getting all the teams in the NHL to hire real hockey players. That seems a lot easier said than done.

"If you think fighting will be pushed out of the game by those who don't like it you are simply dead wrong." - 'WalkThe Line'

Those who don't like it are exactly the ones who will push it out of the game. It's that simple. That cruel.

But who are the ones who do like it? And why? People here seem to work both sides of the street on this one. Some would speak of fighting here, as this valiant courageous service performed for the betterment of the game by heroic crusaders delivering redemption to the morally corrupt, to the lost souls of the game (to "the Ulf Samuelssons, the Matt Cookes, the Brad Marchands"...).

Others are less philosophical about it, they would cast it and defend it as some kind of god-given "right to entertainment'. They just like to watch it and resent having to feel guilty about it.

Which is it? Is fighting truly providing a useful, indispensible service to the game or is it simply for the entertainment of those it entertains ? I think those who defend their lust for violence with the language of the former - that fighting is a service to the game somehow - are being disingenuous.

I'd almost prefer it if they would just say, "I want fighting kept in the game because I really like to watch two young men fighting."

I personally like the fighting because I think it often is a viable part of the game (not the skating clowns with the fight arranged before the game even starts) and serves a role in both the entertainment aspect and, more importantly, the game itself. Fights can influence the way a game is played as well as its outcome. So yes, I think fighting provides a useful service to the game AND it's entertaining as hell. Sure, I like violence within certain context. The game is better with the fighting as far as I'm concerned and you're kidding yourself if you think I'm some sort of minority on this.

To me a good fight is as good as a big hit. Both are violent and I like the violent aspect of the game.

"If you think fighting will be pushed out of the game by those who don't like it you are simply dead wrong." - 'WalkThe Line'

Those who don't like it are exactly the ones who will push it out of the game. It's that simple. That cruel.

But who are the ones who do like it? And why? People here seem to work both sides of the street on this one. Some would speak of fighting here, as this valiant courageous service performed for the betterment of the game by heroic crusaders delivering redemption to the morally corrupt, to the lost souls of the game (to "the Ulf Samuelssons, the Matt Cookes, the Brad Marchands"...).

Others are less philosophical about it, they would cast it and defend it as some kind of god-given "right to entertainment'. They just like to watch it and resent having to feel guilty about it.

Which is it? Is fighting truly providing a useful, indispensible service to the game or is it simply for the entertainment of those it entertains ? I think those who defend their lust for violence with the language of the former - that fighting is a service to the game somehow - are being disingenuous.

I'd almost prefer it if they would just say, "I want fighting kept in the game because I really like to watch two young men fighting."

Its not meant to be for you or i. Its not there to get me in the seats or to keep you away. It is a nec evil bc it is a physical sport where the players are permitted to drop the gloves to let off steam. Ive played in both types of leagues, ive played in goon heavy junior leagues and slash happy non fighting leagues. CIS hockey is a great brand of hockey but the high sticking and slashing dirty stuff is high. Pj stock pointed that out on saturday. He played in that league and the nhl.

Gord, your argument does have some believers, but you are in the minority. Know how i know, bc montreal will sell out every game this year and tickets agaibst the leafs, bruins and sens will be even harder to get. Even if the get rid of fighting was a 50-50 split the players want it. Its going no where. I dont go to a hockey game hoping for a fight. But when Iggy stands up for himself and the building is going nuts i think your stance is nul/void. would you rather iggy take his number and elbow him when the refs arent looking. Pretty sure the hitter knew it was coming and answered the bell. Its hockey, been here long before you and i. Players still want it. Its not going anywhere. So if you stop going to games im sure your 140 seat will be filled. Nothing cruel about it at all. You are a minority. Not that its wrong. Its fact.

Ive been very strong in my opinion to get rid of clowns. I think getting rid of the one dimensional players like scott is possible. But it sure seems like fighting and these non hockey players are finding work. mcgratton continues to find employment. Orr and ST make decent money. Teams want them.

PS....and for a lot of the non traditional hockey markets fighters are the biggest draw. Jody Shelley jersey was the top seller in columbus and im willing to bet biznasty is tops in yote land. When i was in kansas the fans knew nothing about hockey....they LOVED hitting and fights and goals.

"...Its not going anywhere. So if you stop going to games im sure your 140 seat will be filled. Nothing cruel about it at all. You are a minority. Not that its wrong. Its fact." - 'shuperman'

I suppose we'll see. Within 10 years I think you'll see a much differnt approach to dealing with fighting and fighters in this game. Maybe within five.

Also what's 'your 140 seat' mean ? Are you casting aspersions on a fellow anonymous poster?

140 dollar seat for the game you dont want. And you may be right on your 10 year stance. I dont think it will ever be eliminated. Hockey players are hockey players, most are tough and can fight. Scott is a fighter who cant play. There is a difference.

PS....and for a lot of the non traditional hockey markets fighters are the biggest draw. Jody Shelley jersey was the top seller in columbus and im willing to bet biznasty is tops in yote land. When i was in kansas the fans knew nothing about hockey....they LOVED hitting and fights and goals.

Just to make a point, coming from the women's side, I know a lot of players who want the IIHF and national rules relaxed to allow more hitting and fighting in our game in order to cut down on the stick work. Since I moved to a full contact league the slashing, spearing and hacking I've had to deal with has gone down exponentially.

If that's the case, well then they didn't deserve this beautiful game in the first place. (Though, to be fair, some surmise that it's the fighting that turns just as many peole away in those markets)

[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't believe there is a person out there who refuses to be a hockey fan because the league allows fighting. I believe that people are not fans because they didn't grow up with the sport and it was just never part of their lives.

Huh? - still scratching my head, but anyway. Are you saying my stance on fighting makes me a fairweather fan? Or an emotionally detached fan? Or what are you saying?

I do know the difference between players who can fight and fighters who can't play.

The latter will be the first to go. That seems to be something everyone here can agree on (they're called 'clowns' here). And if that means 'non-traditional hockey markets' go with them, so be it.

If that's the case, well then they didn't deserve this beautiful game in the first place. (Though, to be fair, some surmise that it's the fighting that turns just as many peole away in those markets)

No gord, im saying that just bc you decide not to go bc of fighting there will be a lineup to take your seat. Hockey is a great game but its not ice capades. Its a violent sport that is extremely fast. Dont you think that lucic, chara, iggy, mcquad would suffer from the intimidation factor, they dont have to fight, but having that ace up their sleeve sure helps. it means a lot when you can back up your physical play by being able to drop the mits. Chara is feared. He would lose some of this if he couldnt fight. Who knows if a guy like lucic even makes it. essentially you eliminate the power style player and replace it with skil.

Scott Cheerey was a fantastic player, was a 2nd round pick of the capitals, played with him at UNB, hardest hitter ive ever seen. 6'2" 220lbs. Fast, solid in both ends, good hands. wouldnt fight. Hes now an nhl linesman.

i never want the physical side of hockey to be taken out.

Red, ive seen some good womans leagues(sorry nas but its true) and woman can be vicious.

Great points on both sides. One factoid that always comes up is the 90-something % of players in favor of it. I don't buy the reason is they feel there would be mass chaos. I think the reason is because fighting = more jobs and they're just protecting teammates from getting pushed out of hockey.

Great points on both sides. One factoid that always comes up is the 90-something % of players in favor of it. I don't buy the reason is they feel there would be mass chaos. I think the reason is because fighting = more jobs and they're just protecting teammates from getting pushed out of hockey.

Asmaha, the jobs would be there for skill guys wouldnt it? They have buddies who didnt make it bc of these meatheads. But when chara came in he was a project. Who knows if chars ever becomes chara without fighting. Lots of krug style guys that would have bumped him outta a job.

"No fighting in the Olympics. Great hockey. let those teams play each other over the course of a couple of months and you'd have to allow fighting or they would just do it until they make it legal"

They play each other night out and night in over in Europe...and don't fight.

San, i said this earlier. Watch some of those euro games. Stick work is brutal. if these leagues were so good wouldnt they steal some thunder from the best league in the world. wouldnt more players go there. When biznasty is a scorer over there something is wrong.

"if these leagues were so good wouldnt they steal some thunder from the best league in the world."

No because the NHL is the best hockey league in the world and becuase players that would ride the bus in the AHL can make tax free money over there.

Just admit you don't want the fighting to go becuase you enjoy the fights instead of making excuses. I don't want Iginla or Lucic in the box when they could be doing there job, which is score goals and help Boston win games.

"if these leagues were so good wouldnt they steal some thunder from the best league in the world."

No because the NHL is the best hockey league in the world and becuase players that would ride the bus in the AHL can make tax free money over there.

Just admit you don't want the fighting to go becuase you enjoy the fights instead of making excuses. I don't want Iginla or Lucic in the box when they could be doing there job, which is score goals and help Boston win games.

San, i dont mind a spirited hockey fight, ive been in quite a few and know what they mean. Lucic and Iggy get the room you like watching bc of the fighting eliment. Players fear lucic bc he can pound you with hits and take on any fighter in the league. Its a gun slinger mentality.

You daid the same thing about horton last year. Also happened to be the best game he played all year. Sometimes a fight gets these guys going. Iggy did it every series on the way to the cup. He still scored a lot that playoff run, over 500 in his career.

I think fighting will always be part of the game, over time you'll just see less and less enforcers doing it.

I keep thinking the same. Then teams keep bringing them in. Look at the leafs, they have 2. Ottawa has Neil, felt the need to bring in Kassian. Montreal had Prust-White and brought in Parros. Everyteam but Detroit and possibly the Caps have a legit Clown. They should grandfather goons. Have a skill test. Gotta pass to be considered for the NHL, they is applied from past resume.

And that s it. Soon the days of Parros, Orr etc..will be gone and teams will employ players like Neil. Guys who can fight, but can play also. Fighting will be down, but the fights will be spirited, not calculated.

Dont let dez read this. Neil is a perfect example. Prust is another. Clarkson. guys are gonna have to transform their game. Prust has some skill, lots of grit, can fight and is a great pk guy. What does scott, st, parros and orr offer? Zippo.

Neil can play hockey. No arguments there. Overall, he reminds me of Barnaby. Really easy to hate. I suggested long ago that the league should have a minimum number of minutes that each player on the game roster should have to play. I'm talking something pretty low like 6 minutes or so. If a player doesn't have enough T.O.I. for 2 straight game appearances then the team would be penalized by losing a roster spot for "X" amount of games. After awhile, teams would be wary of dressing players that are a liabilty every time they step on the ice.

Heard somewhere the OHL or some league has a 10-fight max per payer, per season. It keeps the heat of the moment stuff because the average guy won't come close to 10 a year, but it makes the staged goon fights go away because nobody wants to spend their 10 that way. Go over 10 and you sit 25 games.

Still not a fan, but there are ways to less obnoxious goon on goon crime.

I think fighting will always be part of the game, over time you'll just see less and less enforcers doing it.

I keep thinking the same. Then teams keep bringing them in. Look at the leafs, they have 2. Ottawa has Neil, felt the need to bring in Kassian. Montreal had Prust-White and brought in Parros. Everyteam but Detroit and possibly the Caps have a legit Clown. They should grandfather goons. Have a skill test. Gotta pass to be considered for the NHL, they is applied from past resume.

And that s it. Soon the days of Parros, Orr etc..will be gone and teams will employ players like Neil. Guys who can fight, but can play also. Fighting will be down, but the fights will be spirited, not calculated.

Dont let dez read this. Neil is a perfect example. Prust is another. Clarkson. guys are gonna have to transform their game. Prust has some skill, lots of grit, can fight and is a great pk guy. What does scott, st, parros and orr offer? Zippo.

Neil can play hockey. No arguments there. Overall, he reminds me of Barnaby. Really easy to hate. I suggested long ago that the league should have a minimum number of minutes that each player on the game roster should have to play. I'm talking something pretty low like 6 minutes or so. If a player doesn't have enough T.O.I. for 2 straight game appearances then the team would be penalized by losing a roster spot for "X" amount of games. After awhile, teams would be wary of dressing players that are a liabilty every time they step on the ice.

Des thats not a bad idea. in some of the lower pro leagues like the chl they limit the bench size. I dont think you need 4 lines. Make it one or 2 less fwds. If you wanna dress a clown. Suffer when you lose a guy with injury or gets into a penalty game and u need a pk or pp. Good luck throwing Orr out there.

Neil can play hockey. No arguments there. Overall, he reminds me of Barnaby. Really easy to hate. I suggested long ago that the league should have a minimum number of minutes that each player on the game roster should have to play. I'm talking something pretty low like 6 minutes or so. If a player doesn't have enough T.O.I. for 2 straight game appearances then the team would be penalized by losing a roster spot for "X" amount of games. After awhile, teams would be wary of dressing players that are a liabilty every time they step on the ice.

Oh no ! Barnaby was a character and a half ! That guy had a mouth on him and the sheet that came out was at times very funny. Barnaby as between a super rat and a middle weight. Neil is more business and a bit more of a middle weight.

Neil can play hockey. No arguments there. Overall, he reminds me of Barnaby. Really easy to hate. I suggested long ago that the league should have a minimum number of minutes that each player on the game roster should have to play. I'm talking something pretty low like 6 minutes or so. If a player doesn't have enough T.O.I. for 2 straight game appearances then the team would be penalized by losing a roster spot for "X" amount of games. After awhile, teams would be wary of dressing players that are a liabilty every time they step on the ice.

Oh no ! Barnaby was a character and a half ! That guy had a mouth on him and the sheet that came out was at times very funny. Barnaby as between a super rat and a middle weight. Neil is more business and a bit more of a middle weight.